5 ms·

I disagree that the low ranking athletes don't provide value to society. They are the motivation for the people at the top to continue to improve. The more peop

by spuz 2y ago

I disagree that the low ranking athletes don't provide value to society. They are the motivation for the people at the top to continue to improve. The more people are nipping at the feet of the top athletes, the more they realise they increase their game. That's without mentioning that in some sports, a lot of people enjoy watching the lower level performers because they can more easily relate to them.

JohnBooty 2y ago
I agree with you. These sports in general provide value in the sense that many people find them worth paying for. That's the definition of value. Now, it's true that they're not generally excited to see the #503rd ranked player in the world play the #489th ranked player. But, the top 50 players in the world were once ranked at the bottom. They played their way up. In other words, how would you know who are the best players in the world unless you have a large pool of professional players? Like many, I have a lot of issues with the way tennis rankings are calculated and the way prize money is distributed. You need those lower ranked players and therefore they should be paid more.
- quartesixte 2y ago
  Also want to point out that top 500 ranked individuals in individual sports represent 99.99 percentile skill level against the entire pool of people playing that sport recreationally. It’s just that they’re playing against 99.99999% percentile skill level athletes. But make no mistake D1 and Pro-Circuit players are, at the end of the day, still very good.
watwut 2y ago
> They are the motivation for the people at the top to continue to improve. That is improving at something that is completely useless still. It is not even more interesting to watch than, say, 20 years ago. That progress does not help anyone.
- jgwil2 2y ago
  It's exactly as useless as film, literature, art, and anything else that people consume as entertainment.
  - watwut 2y ago
    If you are better at making music, your music is better to listen. If everyone is producing better movies, we all watch better movies. It is not the same with sport. You being 0.05s faster swimmer does not make swimming competition more fun to watch. Same with skiing or whatever. And pretty often, the performance improvements make the sport more boring to watch due to predictable optimal tactic.
  - wiether 2y ago
    And it's even better when you can have both _useless_ sports and _useless_ literature : https://escapecollective.com/belief-wins-the-day/ https://escapecollective.com/belief-wins-the-day/

by spuz 2y ago

JohnBooty 2y ago

I agree with you. These sports in general provide value in the sense that many people find them worth paying for. That's the definition of value. Now, it's true that they're not generally excited to see the #503rd ranked player in the world play the #489th ranked player. But, the top 50 players in the world were once ranked at the bottom. They played their way up. In other words, how would you know who are the best players in the world unless you have a large pool of professional players? Like many, I have a lot of issues with the way tennis rankings are calculated and the way prize money is distributed. You need those lower ranked players and therefore they should be paid more.

quartesixte 2y ago
Also want to point out that top 500 ranked individuals in individual sports represent 99.99 percentile skill level against the entire pool of people playing that sport recreationally. It’s just that they’re playing against 99.99999% percentile skill level athletes. But make no mistake D1 and Pro-Circuit players are, at the end of the day, still very good.

watwut 2y ago

> They are the motivation for the people at the top to continue to improve. That is improving at something that is completely useless still. It is not even more interesting to watch than, say, 20 years ago. That progress does not help anyone.

jgwil2 2y ago
It's exactly as useless as film, literature, art, and anything else that people consume as entertainment.
- watwut 2y ago
  If you are better at making music, your music is better to listen. If everyone is producing better movies, we all watch better movies. It is not the same with sport. You being 0.05s faster swimmer does not make swimming competition more fun to watch. Same with skiing or whatever. And pretty often, the performance improvements make the sport more boring to watch due to predictable optimal tactic.
- wiether 2y ago
  And it's even better when you can have both _useless_ sports and _useless_ literature : https://escapecollective.com/belief-wins-the-day/ https://escapecollective.com/belief-wins-the-day/